-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
October Ratings
- Thread starter tbolt909
- Start date
Remember, thought, that a 0.8 statistically is the same as a 1.4 or a 1.6 or a 0.6. Those stations with under a 2 share can wobble by 50% up and down from the median number. On the other hand, it has been at least 25 dog years since David Field did anything positive in the programming area.
Field stubbornly clings to the Alternative format in spite of its very limited appeal. The "New" hub programming won't get them anywhere. He can "parachute" out anytime and leave the smoldering ashes for someone else...
National "network" formats can and will work if done right... great major market talent, locally programmed music based on local taste and the competitive environment and local service elements as needed for the format (news in mornings, traffic if the market needs it, weather) and spot breaks adapted to the sales level of the station.
Instead, Field is doing what SMN did which limited them pretty much to smaller and un-competitive markets.
The frequency will be Country. Welcome to THE FARM
Is there actually "great" major market talent anymore? Seems like many big stations have 12 yr. old boys in drivetime.
Last time I checked, Scott Shannon, who does morning drive at WCBS-FM, is a few years north of 12 years old.
Seriously, if you look at web sites for major market radio stations, you'll see a lot of grey hair.
As for the various "networks," a lot of the DJs who found themselves out of work, either because of their age or their salary, have been able to land national jobs at the various syndication companies. Lately we've seen a number of people get into self-syndication through some interesting automation services. If you have talent, and you've done a good job networking with station owners and PDs, you can make a good living doing radio from the spare bedroom in your house.
Having said all that, I got my first radio job when I was 15, so there's absolutely nothing wrong or unusual about radio stations hiring teenagers. I'm here to tell you it's been done for a long time.
Everything old is new again. Fybush researched and wrote an outstanding radio historical piece:
https://www.fybush.com/site-020116.html
2.8 appears to be a popular number, and Classic a popular destination, and WYRK appears to be #1 --- again.:
https://ratings.****************/content/arb037
@$@
"Sometimes a banana is just a banana; and a 0.8 share is just a 0.8 share." -Freud
It actually amazes me that my station is tied with 3 wall street 50,000 watt stations. I am very proud of that.
However, I still do not trust the ratings either way. Listening habits have changed
Now, Nielson just put in place that if you do not subscribe, you won't show up.
It's like extortion. I may drop Nielson. Way too much money
The policy of not showing in the public release if you are not subscribed went into effect in the middle of last year. At the same time, unsubscribed stations with less than a 0.1 rating were not listed in the paid subscriber reports. At current listening levels, that means that stations with as much as a 1.3 share will not be listed!
The final step is to remove non-subscribers from the paid subscriber reports. That means that a subscriber who competes with a non-subscriber has no way of knowing how well they are doing vs. the other stations. Than makes Nielsen ratings nearly useless as a programming tool.
The problem is that, at that low level, there is no statistical difference between any number within a range that can be calculated for one standard error; if you go to two standard errors the scope of "real" is even wider.
It's useless for a programming tool, but for a sales tool it is useful. It is the only metric anyone has.
At this point, though, it is like measuring your living room for carpet with footsteps... and with a blindfold on.
How many advertisers say "Let me buy time on the 0.8 station?". At the low level you describe, a drop from 1.4 to 0.8 means almost half the listeners disappeared. In this case, half of nothing = nothing.
As an experiment, 107.7 should go off the air for a month. Maybe the ratings would hit a 2 share...
Advertisers who use low-rated stations don't look at the ratings... they look at their belief in the compatibility of the format with their business and things like creative help, relationship based sales person, and results at the cash register.
An agency, with rare exceptions, is not looking at the numbers for a very secondary station. They just are not buying it.
And we have known forever that low ratings levels are very erratic because the margin of error increases almost exponentially as you get below numbers under 2, and even more when under 1 share. This is made worse because the lower PUR (Persons Using Radio) means that there is less listening by the same sample size.
- Status